HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Do you think a Jr Women's league should be established for women hockey players that plan to play DI/DIII hockey? Maybe just for incoming Seniors? Juniors?

Spent a lot of time watching hockey during the NAHA tournament. One thing I noticed that stood out from other entrants (Little Cesears, NAHA, Steelers) over the MN teams was the strength of their team play. In those games where the opposition played the MN teams tight, you could see the MN teams style of play revert back toward individual skill play. Once the MN teams reverted to that style of play, they took away one of their strongest attributes, speed. The "other" teams started boxing up the center of the ice in their zone and didn't allow many pucks to get to the net.

In talking with several college coaches watching the games, they referred to the MN style as "High School Hockey". You can see how this can happen, when many of the players from MN are standouts on their HS teams. In a HS game, when the going gets tough, they are able to control the game by rushing the puck up ice and going for the goal. Some players are encouraged by their coaches in order to get the puck out of their zone. When playing in this calibur of a tournament, team play really sets the better teams apart from the rest.

I know more practicing for the "elite" teams and less games may be an answer to improve team play, however during the HS season (4 months) it reinforces the individual skill behavior.

In order to develop women players that more easily can transition to the college level of play, or for that matter the U18/U22 National Teams, the players need to practice and play at a high level to reinforce those skills and allow them to be more of a contributor. Remember, only four years of college hockey. You don't want the first year to be spent getting acclimated to the game!

I know there are some exceptional players and HS teams that reinforce the team play skills, however IMO 3 or 4 teams could be made in MN to play against SSM, Thoroughbreds, etc and raise the skill level of many more players.

I think team play is developed in practice and applied in games. It appears SSM has lots of practice time - daily and +70 games. The Thoroughbreds appear to have 2 pracitces a week and go from August to March. With summer teams; B&A and HS you can get plenty of great games - the question is are the coaches holding the kids to a system of team play and focused on developing players skills/knowledge of the game. Lots of summer teams appear to be and maybe should be open the door and let the players go skate.

A HS team practices 3-4 times a week in season. My sense watching HS games is many coaches allow their playes to go and don't get on them about making the right pass - to this point in HS and probably up to the past 2 years in college hockey it worked. Now if you watch a Wisconsin game Mark Johnson has the Badgers playing a pass and skate game - they really open up the rink passing and work the give and go very well.

Perhaps the best thing a coach can do in Jr or HS is hold the players accountable to play team hockey - not just lug shoot and crash the net.

As always it will be interesting to see the evolution of the girls game. On the boys side the HS model in Minnesota is producing more D1 players than anywhere else. I am not sure on the girls side - if there are 150 recruits a year and 30 are from Canada where did US 120 play Minnesota HS, Prep Schools.....I don't know the number for AAA maybe someone has that breakdown?

Juniors for women is already happening, with NAHA, BC Steelers, Washington Pride, and Warner School in Alberta. Soon there will be a team in Boston, and one would expect others to be added in Canada such as the Toronto Rattlers, which are a NAHA like organization

http://www.jwhl.org/wjuniors/.

Thanks for your post. The problem that I see is the depth of talent for most HS teams. Not that the players are territble, however I think the 120 or so going DI were spread pretty thin around the state. You also have HS coaches that may not have the knowledge to really teach the game. The coaching pool is limited by the HS ice hours and such (another topic). You can't teach a team game when the dropoff from the top player(s) to the next level is still so large. You can really see it when you get the top players from around MN playing together. It's a great game to watch, as all players raise their level of play to equal their peers. The pace and playmaking really shows.

Hux Posted: 08 Sep 2007 03:32 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Juniors for women is already happening, with NAHA, BC Steelers, Washington Pride, and Warner School in Alberta. Soon there will be a team in Boston, and one would expect others to be added in Canada such as the Toronto Rattlers, which are a NAHA like organization

http://www.jwhl.org/wjuniors/.

I should have clarified....In MN? Today in MN there is only the Thoroughbreds and the rest are Prep teams or before and after.

puckfan11 wrote:

Hux Posted: 08 Sep 2007 03:32 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Juniors for women is already happening, with NAHA, BC Steelers, Washington Pride, and Warner School in Alberta. Soon there will be a team in Boston, and one would expect others to be added in Canada such as the Toronto Rattlers, which are a NAHA like organization

http://www.jwhl.org/wjuniors/.

I should have clarified....In MN? Today in MN there is only the Thoroughbreds and the rest are Prep teams or before and after.

Then in answer to your question, NO. If you already have one team it should stay that way to ensure that there isn't a watering down. Sure, you could support two or maybe even three teams (Ice Cats, Whitecaps) but it wouldn't stop there. Soon you would have a fourth, and probably six teams for a "league" and now the talent has been thinned out. We have all seen what happens, someone doesn't make a team, and they band together with a few other "cuts" and they start their own program and undercut the others and pretty soon there are a dozen programs for the disaffected.

(Gotta love the new version of Firefox. I misspelled disaffected and it underlined it to show me I had as though I were using Word)

Well my opinion on this is yes,however it is wrought with problems. Not least of which is fan base. This is tied directly to the style of game that is played and the existing rules. no checking. Now I am not suggesting that any contact rule should change because we all know that significant contact is made in any womans hockey game played. But to market any program as no checking is a terrible marketing practice and clearly affects the fan base of womens hockey. As you are talking about Minnesota hockey another problem is that Minnesota in inundated with all types of hockey. On a given weekend it is not if you want to watch hockey but where and at what level. The diloution of the fan base is why you see no USHL teams in Minnesota any more . Their is an existing system which could facilitate this problem nicely in my opinion . It would save both students and colleges money and would allow for young ladies to continue on with their education.

Hux Posted: 08 Sep 2007 14:13 Post subject:
Then in answer to your question, NO. If you already have one team it should stay that way to ensure that there isn't a watering down.

I agree with what you have stated, however we already have this situation with HS hockey (watered down teams). What are your thoughts as to better prepare the MN players for the college game (speed, passing, physical play, etc)?

I think a league of teams that would include players of the calibre of SSM and the T-Breds would definitely improve the top-end level of girls hockey. Players would have to learn to move the puck and move to get open for the team to be effective. Individual play would have to take a backseat to team play. And the league would have to be all season; not the B&A leagues that are attempting to get a foothold in girls hockey.

On a typical HS team (not EP or BSM type team), there are perhaps two to four players who would be able to play at this level.

However, like just about any aspect of youth sports, there would be numerous obstacles for a league like this of ever existing.

(1) How teams would be selected.
(2) Going up against the HS model established by the boys.
(3) Who would coach the teams.
(4) Cost
(5) Probable opposition from the HS coaches.
(6) Where do the "non-elite" players play?

The main benefit of a league like this is that it would definitely improve team play; the players would have to learn how to play the game the way it is supposed to be played.

The U18 and U22 series against Canada really exposed the lack of effective team play by the typical US/MN player. MN definitely has good individual players. But because of the level of competition provided by the majority of HS teams, individual play is often more effective than team play. On a bigger stage, individual play is not very effective.

Team play is coachable as mentioned earlier, most teams have 2-4 high end players, notice I did not say elite( I hate that word) The biggest problem is the high end players have only themselves to play with and often times are separated on lines or position(D) . If you want to increase team play you need to upgrade the skills of the middle level players while not encrouching on the high end players. None of this can be accomplished by working on Power plays or playing more games. This has to be done by enhancing skills, spending time on skills. Even the high end players need the repetition of skills. Ask any NHL coach or D1 coach he will tell you the same. Just another thought .

xwildfan wrote:The U18 and U22 series against Canada really exposed the lack of effective team play by the typical US/MN player. MN definitely has good individual players. But because of the level of competition provided by the majority of HS teams, individual play is often more effective than team play. On a bigger stage, individual play is not very effective.

I agree with everything you say above, but would just point out that Wendell and Darwitz, and others to a lesser degree, were totally dominant at the high school level, yet somehow managed to develop into very effective team players both in college and at the national level. And when they played h.s. the level of play was FAR inferior to what you see today. When Wendell and Darwitz played their teams were usually much better off having them carry the puck and taking it all the way themselves - this greatly improved the odds their team would score. Today when the top 20 or so teams play each other, it's become much more difficult for any one player to do it all themselves. For these teams to be effective against the other top teams, even the best players need to use their teammates. I don't think that was the case just 10 years ago. It's amazing how many girls in Minnesota can now play at a very high level, which has made it much more difficult for any one player to dominate the way they could in the past.

All that said, it could be quite a few years, if ever, before we see another player of Wendell's or Darwitz's offensive abilities come along again. They were that good, and maybe that helps explain why they were able to so easily adopt their games as they moved up to the higher levels.

MNHockeyFan Posted: 08 Sep 2007 18:06 Post subject:
I agree with everything you say above, but would just point out that Wendell and Darwitz, and others to a lesser degree, were totally dominant at the high school level, yet somehow managed to develop into very effective team players both in college and at the national level.

I don't have the stats at hand for Darwitz and/or Wendell their first year of college hockey, however I believe they are the anomaly. I have seen great HS players get to the college level and spend the first year adjusting to the next game level. I believe that a player that has played at the SSM / T-Breds level the previous year has a head start. Because the HS players have great skills, they do "manage to develop" and become successful. Just think how they may have developed if the starting point in college was notched up a bit.

puckfan11 wrote:I don't have the stats at hand for Darwitz and/or Wendell their first year of college hockey, however I believe they are the anomaly. I have seen great HS players get to the college level and spend the first year adjusting to the next game level. I believe that a player that has played at the SSM / T-Breds level the previous year has a head start. Because the HS players have great skills, they do "manage to develop" and become successful. Just think how they may have developed if the starting point in college was notched up a bit.

I suppose eventually you may see more junior teams develop for girls like you have in boys, where very few h.s. players now have the ability to jump right into Division I - most spend at least one year playing juniors. But personally I would hate to see a club level winter league formed that would compete with high schools directly for the better players. There is something special about playing for your school. For the standout players hockey is pretty much a year around sport, and there are lots of opportunities in the off season to play against top level competition.

I think we will see more academy type programs spring up in the near future, and these schools will field the teams that fill the junior league. I don't see it getting like the boys, but players who have the ability to succeed academically in that type of environment, and are willing to put in the effort on and off-ice will be drawn to these programs. I think part of the attraction will be for the talented player who needs to bring up their grades some will now have a place to play, train, and improve in the classroom, prior to going off to college.

Just noticed that 5 of the new T'Breds players are 'not from around here' (at least an hours' drive away from Highland Arena). Maybe it is time for a U19AAA team to develop outstate?

see the crunch roster

How is the distance being handled for practices for the Crunch? Looks like a great idea just curious about some of the details of how making it work? How was the roster determined and how many tournaments? Is this the first year?

Hope this is the beginning of more opportunities for the outstate players.

Media,
Agree about the term"elite"; don't like it either. Re / Darwitz and Wendell - they both are head and shoulders above any MN players to date. Darwitz was the best forward (IMO) in Lake Placid during the U22 - U18 games. Also, I think what may have helped both adapt to a team game is that both played a lot of boys hockey in their younger days and I am sure both still play senior men pick-up hockey.

xwildfan wrote:Media,
Agree about the term"elite"; don't like it either. Re / Darwitz and Wendell - they both are head and shoulders above any MN players to date. Darwitz was the best forward (IMO) in Lake Placid during the U22 - U18 games. Also, I think what may have helped both adapt to a team game is that both played a lot of boys hockey in their younger days and I am sure both still play senior men pick-up hockey.

They actually spend the summers with CODP and doing the on ice skating and skills with the pro group that includes players like Alberts, Martin, Leopold, Pohl, Ballard and Potulny etc.

The Crunch for right now are just coming together, Ihave a plan in mind to work on over the winter months which could lead to a real positive thing for out state girls . I have had some initial discussion on a limited basis in regard to next season. How did we choose them I did it myself
I spent a significant amount of time last winter traveling and watching players across the out state area's, metro tourneys etc. This does not mean it will be the process in the future but as we continue to grow this project it will be dynamic, growing in whatever direction it needs to grow.
The mission is to show case our outstate girls and allow them the same opportunities afforded other venues. The one difference you may find in the Crunch program is that we believe that there is an inherant need to enhance the skills across the board in Minnesota , not unlike many of you were talking about. This is a works in progress and can say now so far so good but we have a long ways to go. I need to say some of the Walsner folks and others have been very helpful as we try and navigate the many hurdles you ask about.

HUX-

You are a well respected member of hockey posting boards. Your opinions are well thought through and spot on. It is clear you speak from a high degree of east coast experience. It would be helpful to me to understand why an expert in what happens on the east coast makes posts about hockey training that happens in Minn. To my knowledge, no one at CODP this summer ever saw either Krissy Wendell or Jack Blatherwick. They are no longer involved with the day-to-day operations of the program, if at all. The program is run by Len Vanelli, a former HS coach from Totino Grace HS. There are lots of stories about why he is no longer coaching there, but that is not salient here. CODP is a fine program. At one time (when Jack was running it), it was the only program around for elite hockey players. Fortunately, today, there are a lot more options available. Frankly, it is unfortunate that the the CODP program is allowed to retain the word Olympic. CODP is as much a commercial endeavour as any other. It is not THE pathway to the Olympics. That pathway is paved by consistent training, a hard work ethic and some talent. To this end, there are many, many programs in Minn that are every bit as "Olympic" as CODP.

Interesting, to say the least. If the term "high school hockey" is a pejorative in the eyes of college and national scouts, woe be to the Minnesota high school sports system.

This thread offers a really fascinating perspective on our high school hockey model from the college and international standpoints. We celebrate our great high school tradition and the players who carry their teams on their backs to St. Paul, only to learn it's not what the upper levels are looking for. Does the east coast understand what we refuse to acknowledge?

"Be careful what you wish for" is my thought on this... The second we transition to non-community based athletics in HS we will see the HS sport lose its meaning, prestige, etc. Kids won't grow up dreaming of playing at their home HS anymore, we will lose the tradition of the game that goes far beyond Girls HS Hockey in our great state...

B&AGEL is the answer I think for now and maybe indefinitely...

Also - a compromise would be for the MSHSL allow B&A to play 1-2 Sun games each week in season or practice on sun but there are "double roster" issues and MSHSL rules with this... Probably for good reason too...

IMHO what the rest of the nation/world does may not be best (i.e. non-community based "club" hockey), and we may actually be doing it right here in MN as is with a few minor changes (B&AGEL)??? I'd prefer to create a TON of players though community based hockey rather than focus on the select few that can afford the non-community model.

ghshockeyfan wrote:"Be careful what you wish for" is my thought on this... The second we transition to non-community based athletics in HS we will see the HS sport lose its meaning, prestige, etc. Kids won't grow up dreaming of playing at their home HS anymore, we will lose the tradition of the game that goes far beyond Girls HS Hockey in our great state...

B&AGEL is the answer I think for now and maybe indefinitely...

Also - a compromise would be for the MSHSL allow B&A to play 1-2 Sun games each week in season or practice on sun but there are "double roster" issues and MSHSL rules with this... Probably for good reason too...

IMHO what the rest of the nation/world does may not be best (i.e. non-community based "club" hockey), and we may actually be doing it right here in MN as is with a few minor changes (B&AGEL)??? I'd prefer to create a TON of players though community based hockey rather than focus on the select few that can afford the non-community model.

Couldn't agree more with these sentiments...especially considering all of the off season opportunities that are out there. The answer to building more future "elite" players is to expand the base of females taking up the game, which is done through community based youth programs where young girls can grow up wanting to play for their school. Then afford the truly dedicated and talented opportunities to move up and face competition playing against others who are equally as dedicated and talented.

IMO there is no substitute for pure numbers which will produce more good athletes taking up the game. The rest will take care of itself as the really talented players that develop will rise to the top. The winter high school season is only about one quarter of the year, but by itself it provides the "lure" of many more girls to become interested in playing the game because they can easily identify with their community and getting involved.

At the same time you would hope the MSHL would not put up unnessary roadblocks to the truly dedicated and talented player who wants to advance to D1 and maybe beyond. I think the compromise that ghs suggests is reasonable and should be explored further - it protects the school-based system and yet allows for more intense competition simultaneously.

[quote="ghshockeyfan"]"I'd prefer to create a TON of players though community based hockey rather than focus on the select few that can afford the non-community model.


Well said GHS,
The reason HS hockey is good, is it does give girls an opportunity, not every family has the means to do camp after camp. And you never know there might be a diamond in the rough. Unfortunately it is becoming even more of a rich mans game.